IN THE MATTER OF GREGORY BALCERAK, RESPONDENT, v. THE COUNTY OF NASSAU,
APPELLANT.
94 N.Y.2d 253 (1999).
December 16, 1999
2 No. 182
(99 NY Int. 0172)
Decided December 16, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Peter M. Fishbein, for appellant.
Wayne J. Schaefer, for respondent.
New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials; Towns of
Clarkstown, Orangetown and Ramapo; Police Conference of New York,
Inc., amici curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The question before this Court is whether a determination by the
Workers' Compensation Board that an injuryis work-related should, by
operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured
employee to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. We answer the
question in the negative and reverse the order of the Appellate
Division that ruled against appellant Nassau County on that ground.
Petitioner Balcerak, a corrections officer, sustained injuries in an
automobile accident in June, 1996. Just before the accident, Balcerak
had left the Nassau County Correctional Center, where he was assigned
to a special duty "midnight shift." He later filled out an "injury
sustained while on duty form" requesting General Municipal Law
207-c benefits. The County never paid him these benefits and
eventually memorialized the functional denial of benefits in a letter
to Balcerak dated September 9, 1997. In the interim, Balcerak applied
for Workers' Compensation benefits. Although the County opposed this
application, the Workers' Compensation Board granted Balcerak this
form of benefit.
Approximately one month after the Board determination, Balcerak filed
this CPLR article 78 petition. He pressed his claim against Nassau
County for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, retroactive to
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF GREGORY BALCERAK, RESPONDENT, v.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The question before this Court is whether a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board
We answer the question in the negative and reverse the order of the Appellate Division that
Petitioner Balcerak, a corrections officer, sustained injuries in an automobile accident in
Approximately one month after the Board determination, Balcerak filed this CPLR article 78
On reargument, after the County failed toappeal the Workers' Compensation determination,
Its proffered rationale continues that a favorable Workers' Compensation determination should
We agree with the appellant County that identity of issue is lacking here, and, thus,
Contrary to Balcerak's arguments and to the reasoning in the lower courts, the two statutory
Our precedents are plain that the party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel -- here,
Initially, his theory highlights the fact that the Legislature, which could have utilized the
General Municipal Law § 207-c pertinently provides that a corrections officer "injured in the
"Today's probation officers find themselves performing many of the functions performed by
The goal is to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the
Workers' Compensation Law § 30 indirectly acknowledges that General Municipal Law § 207-c
This provisionguards against a presumption or collateral estoppel "kicker" that a General
|
